THE CRITICAL IMPORTANCE OF BIODIVERSITY

When debating weighty matters of state, our political elite rate environmental matters way behind national security, economic growth and getting re-elected. Meanwhile, the business community views biodiversity as a resource to be plundered to the extent that laws allow, or beyond if they feel they can get away with it.

Most of the remainder, it seems, have little understanding of nature and biodiversity, focusing instead on mortgages, energy costs, and the pressures of just surviving in this man-made “rat race”. 

It isn't as though the importance of biodiversity isn't known.  It's simply that those natural values come a distant last, behind social and economic considerations.

The critical importance of biodiversity is summed up well in the national biodiversity plan, “Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy, 2010–2030”, which states: “Conserving biodiversity is an essential part of safeguarding the biological life support systems on Earth. All living creatures, including humans, depend on these life support systems for the necessities of life”.

One would think that statement alone would grab the attention of policy makers, but it seems it hasn't. If, on the other hand, policy makers have received and understood that message, their subsequent actions allowing, and in some instances encouraging the ongoing destruction of biodiversity, can only be described as criminally negligent.

That federal biodiversity strategy accurately sums up the current situation, with “biodiversity continues to decline”. We are now halfway through the period during which that strategy was supposed to turn things around.

So how are we doing?

Not too well. An accelerating number of listed threatened species, a Murray – Darling River system reduced to a series of toxic puddles, courtesy of taxpayer funded water theft, increased CO2 emissions, and a world heritage reef dying before our eyes.

We have a government whose leader brings a lump of coal into parliament telling the world that we've nothing to fear from it, and both major political parties espousing an increase in mining and burning of coal. All this despite acknowledging the scientific evidence that the subsequent emissions will lead to catastrophic global heating. This is insanity!

            - John Edwards

 This article was originally published in the VOICES FOR THE EARTH column in The Daily Examiner on October 28,  2019

NSW EMISSIONS BILL 'RETROGRADE' AND 'PURE POLITICS'

ENVIRONMENTAL  DEFENDERS  OFFICE  NSW

Media Release

The New South Wales Government has introduced legislation to prevent the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from Australian coal burned overseas. The move came just days after the Government launched a review of the Independent Planning Commission, following a sustained advertising and lobbying campaign by the NSW Minerals Council.

25 October 2019: The Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Territorial Limits) Bill 2019 was introduced into Parliament on Thursday.

EDO CEO David Morris greeted Wednesday’s announcement of the legislative package as indicating “an unwillingness to grapple with the serious local impacts from Australian coal burned overseas.”

“A day after the Minerals Council gave evidence to ICAC that they were lobbying privately and publicly for changes to the law, the Government has capitulated, without regard for current or future generations.

“It doesn’t matter where Australian coal is burned, it’s Australian communities that are and will increasingly feel the brunt of a changing climate. The Government’s decision artificially carves out climate impacts from Australian coal on local communities – that is an absurd decision.

“In 2019, as the rest of the world rapidly phases out fossil fuels, we should be urgently planning for a just transition for coal and gas communities and a safe climate for our children. Instead, the NSW Government wants to make it law to ignore Australia’s most significant contribution to the problem - emissions from exports. It would appear that this Government’s only plan for addressing the climate crisis is to turn a blind eye.

“The most significant climate judgment in this nation’s history was based on scientific evidence. The Rocky Hill decision made it clear – emissions from Australian coal are not something that happen ‘over there’, they have a deep and lasting impact here at home. That’s why we have to take responsibility for those emissions, and it’s appropriate our laws reflect that. A decision to remove that requirement would be a retrograde step and inconsistent with a science-based response to managing climate change.

“The greatest trick the Minerals Council has played is to hoodwink us into thinking that our export of fossil fuels has no effect locally. That is wrong. It is not based in science.

“As Professor Will Steffen said in the Rocky Hill case, “it is one climate system”. Because of that, burning NSW coal overseas impacts communities here at home. It defies logic that in a time of severe drought and bushfires, a political party claiming to be for and from the bush would legislate against consideration of climate impacts from Australian coal on our communities. Perhaps they don’t think the impacts of climate change on NSW communities matter. Perhaps they don’t accept the science. In either case, it is an indictment on the Government.

“The beauty of the Rocky Hill decision was its basis in science and fact. The appalling thing about the Government’s decision is that it’s based on pure politics and self interest.”

NSW PLANNING DECISIONS REFLECTING CLIMATE REALITY

Over the last year or two an increasing number of people have realised that climate change is not something that will affect us in twenty or more years.  It’s affecting us now. The continuing severe drought as well as the unprecedented fires in this country and elsewhere are some of the signs that time is running out for effective action to prevent the onset of more catastrophic impacts .

This realisation about the present reality and mounting threat of climate change has been reflected in two significant decisions against coal projects in NSW this year.

In late 2017 Gloucester Resources had its application for the Rocky Hill Coal Project near Gloucester on the Mid North Coast rejected by the Independent Planning Commission. The company appealed this decision in the Land and Environment Court. 

Early in 2019 this Court refused the appeal on a range of grounds, but what was significant was what was said about climate change. The chief judge stated that emissions from the mine and its coal product would increase total global greenhouse concentrations at a time when a rapid and deep decrease in emissions was needed.

Last week the Independent Planning Commission announced it had refused approval to Kepco’s even larger coal mine in the Bylong Valley, 55km from Mudgee.  In a statement the Commission said, “The project is not in the public interest because it is contrary to the principles of ESD [ecologically sustainable development] - namely intergenerational equity because the predicted economic benefits would accrue to the present generation but the long-term environmental, heritage and agricultural costs will be borne by the future generations.” 

In referring to the greenhouse gas implications of the mine, the Commission cited the comments made by the Land and Environment Court Chief Judge in the Rocky Hill mine judgement earlier this year.

These decisions have set a precedent in NSW which may serve as an example to other states. In addition it has been welcomed by those concerned about climate change who oppose the opening of new coal mines.

            -Leonie Blain

 This article was originally published in the VOICES FOR THE EARTH column in The Daily Examiner on September 23,  2019